Altemus v. Ely
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
in error. Error to the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia. The plaintiff in error was plaintiff below, and brought this suit as master of an apprentice, against the defendant, a clergyman, to recover the penalty of fifty pounds for marrying the apprentice without his master’s consent.
Read the full summary
in error. Error to the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia. The plaintiff in error was plaintiff below, and brought this suit as master of an apprentice, against the defendant, a clergyman, to recover the penalty of fifty pounds for marrying the apprentice without his master’s consent. This penalty was claimed by the plaintiff, for an alleged violation of the act of assembly, passed the 14th of February, 1729-30, entitled, “A supplement to the act, entitled, an act for the preventing clandestine marriages.” The only question raised by the record was, whether an apprentice…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Kennedy, J.
In order to determine the question raised upon this record correctly, it may be well to refer to the words of the original act as well as the supplement. The original act, (1 Sm. L. 21,) among other things, declares, that “ if any servant or servants shall procure themselves to be married, without consent of his or her master or mistress, such servant or servants shall, for such their offence, each of them serve their respective masters or mistresses one whole year, after the time of their servitude by indenture or engagement is expired. And…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Norris v. PilmoreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1794
- Respublica v. KeppeleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1793
- Zieber v. BoosSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1798
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bandy v. Commissioner of Social SecurityDistrict Court, C.D. Illinois · 2020
- Estate of RowlandNew York Surrogate's Court · 1886